New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Only post if you have actually read them and the design document(s) in the Wiki.
User avatar
xarn
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:50

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by xarn » Wed Apr 20, 2016 16:11

Ah, I get why it was misleading. What I meant is that you can still rebuild new buildings as long as you are not "dead" (no more buildings at all).

As for the shaman, well, you still have to attack it somehow to get rid of him ...he can't just disappear from itself, right?

As for the first remark, sure, that would be an option. I guess that's the kind of fine tuning playtesting is for.
User avatar
Peter
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 20:13
Location: Germany

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by Peter » Wed Apr 20, 2016 16:23

xarn wrote:As for the shaman, well, you still have to attack it somehow to get rid of him ...he can't just disappear from itself, right?
But when the number of front creatures is reduced, the number of background creatures adapt. So they dissappear. But maybe it's a bit awkward if the creature just dissappears into thin air. But I wouldn't mind if it does.
Kind regards and happy coding :)
User avatar
xarn
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:50

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by xarn » Thu Apr 21, 2016 18:57

Good point! You're right, I totally forgot that!

What I had in mind is: you cannot have more troops in the back row than the front row at the end of your turn. However, and that's what I forgot, during your reinforcement phase, you are free to move any troops around, from a row to another ...or even discard it.

Thanks for noticing that! I'll add it soon.
ngoeminne
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by ngoeminne » Wed Jun 15, 2016 16:20

Hey Xarn,

Is there an update on the VSR rules? Feel free to add them to our wiki.

Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
xarn
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:50

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by xarn » Sun Jun 19, 2016 05:35

Hi there,

it's still on my TODO list, but I'm investing my time in other things lately. I also wonder if it's a good idea. Don't take me wrong, but it just adds fragmentation to this project.

Basically, every third person in this project re-invents the rules. There was yours, ravenchild's, several more or less developed in the wiki (which I find a bit sad to have been removed instead of having been put in an obsolete section. Some were quite thought out and had perhaps interesting concepts to glean from). And I'm sure I missed some.

So, instead of everyone writing a new set of rules, can't we just tweak the ORC so that it suits our needs? I'd also be very interested to know about your motivation to create the ARC ruleset. For me, the VSR, it was because I found the ORC too long to read. I just wanted something simple, and with interesting novel mechanics (front/back rows, buildings). What about you?
ngoeminne
Posts: 277
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 15:34

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by ngoeminne » Sun Jun 19, 2016 10:05

Hello Xarn,
xarn wrote:it's still on my TODO list, but I'm investing my time in other things lately. I also wonder if it's a good idea. Don't take me wrong, but it just adds fragmentation to this project.
I agree, having multiple rule sets adds to defragmentation. But it has a pro's to. More ideas, more things freedom.
xarn wrote: Basically, every third person in this project re-invents the rules. There was yours, ravenchild's, several more or less developed in the wiki (which I find a bit sad to have been removed instead of having been put in an obsolete section. Some were quite thought out and had perhaps interesting concepts to glean from). And I'm sure I missed some.
I wanted to clean up as much as possible in the wiki, because it looked like a trash, and there were and you got the idea it wasn't taken care off any longer. So I removed as much as possible from the main page. The 'abandoned' rules there where in no way near finished, or had much information in it. Fortunately, they are not removed from the wiki (just the link from the main page), So I/You could bring them back easily.
xarn wrote: So, instead of everyone writing a new set of rules, can't we just tweak the ORC so that it suits our needs? I'd also be very interested to know about your motivation to create the ARC ruleset. For me, the VSR, it was because I found the ORC too long to read. I just wanted something simple, and with interesting novel mechanics (front/back rows, buildings). What about you?
Good question. No easy answer. When I came to the project in december 2015, I found something with a huge lure/attraction, but totally abandoned and near death. It seemed that after 5 to 7 years the project had produced not even the smallest ruleset/game. Just a lot of ideas, but nothing concrete. I still found it worthy enough to dig a little deeper and decided if I could bring it back to life.

So, I started to read the forum post, the wiki, started to gather resources, ... I also did a post-mortem to figure out what went wrong before. Finally I hunted down snowdrop, and started kicking up some dust here.

One of the things that was a problem in development of the game in the past, is that snowdrop got to much work and things depended to much on him to actually make decisions and make progress. So despite his good intentions and the work he did, he became a bottleneck for the project and it stalled.

So, why the ARC?

Snowdrop and I have different style's of working. He develops his ideas very profoundly and tries to have them perfect before testing them out with cards. Progress is slow, but good and sound. He's very critical about new ideas, (which is good), but again that's something that slow downs the development.

Me on the other hand, I like to push things forward. No finished ruleset? Well let's see what is around, ask people to proceed, make one, and if that doesn't work create one of your own.
As I see it the project needs someone to push and push, because having another 7 years on it will not do. So actually snowdrop and me are opposites that work well. Due to me, he has some pressure to proceed, I have so pressure to be reflective and rethink things when they are not sound.

So, the result in a couple of months (started in late feb), there is an actual playable game, with two decks and a ruleset, and an artist that is working trough the missing art parts, so that by the end of the year there could be a print-ready version of the ARC. This was never possible without the freedom given to the ARC.

Kind regards,
Nico
User avatar
snowdrop
developer
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 15:25
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: New rule concept: [VSR] Very Simple Rules

Post by snowdrop » Thu Jun 23, 2016 08:25

xarn wrote:I also wonder if it's a good idea. Don't take me wrong, but it just adds fragmentation to this project.
It is a good idea, if what you envision, in its core, isn't captured by an already existing set.

It isn't a good idea, and does indeed fragment, if it is more or less the same that's already around. Then again, that's also the only instance where it really does fragment, and that in turn only holds true if you would have worked on an existing ruleset instead (if not, then it doesn't fragement anythign since you wouldn't have done anything anyhow...)

Basically, every third person in this project re-invents the rules. There was yours, ravenchild's, several more or less developed in the wiki
That's ok - if people want to, they should. It's very natural and also the intention of a developing phase where groundwork is laid down. As stated above - it's better that people do that, or something, than nothing at all ;) What is good may catch on and gain more interest, what isn't, won't.
Instead of everyone writing a new set of rules, can't we just tweak the ORC so that it suits our needs?
People do what they want, that's the beauty, strength and also weakness given some circumstances, with open source projects with low/no leadership. I think people create sets for a reason, they might want to toy with an idea, they might have a very different vision of what good design is.

Taking anything that's already around and modifying it in your own ways is all well - it's ok to fork whatever, why re-invent the wheel if there are good parts already around in this and that set? =)

As for me, I tweak ORC to suit not only my needs, but what I personally believe can create a fully featured CCG that is somewhat deeper than Magic, yet not really more complex, and with a better resource handling and win conditions. If somebody tells me there are issues with the ORC I always consider them and usually give a reply. I'd be the first one to trash ORC alltogether if I think it's flawed as concept. Sometimes the criticism is correct, sometimes somebody saw something I missed out on (and I'm very grateful for that). Others they're wrong for some reason, and most often, what is claimed can't be verified until extensive playtesting has been done... in which case further discussions and theorizing is just a waste of life.

When you write "tweak to our needs" I'm not sure what those needs are, or whose needs they are. For simplicity, ORC doesn't in it's design strive to be a simpler game than say Magic already is. So, if there for example is a need for a very fast paced game that has another flow, then it's true that ORC isn't something that's usable for that type of game creation. Another set would have to be written for that purpose, and from what I see in ARC it also doesn't strive to be the answer ;)
Post Reply